Back
2022 Supreme(Mad) 3548
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
S. Dharmaraj - Appellant
Versus
M/s. Bank of India, Rep. by its Senior Manager, Ariyalur - Respondent
C.R.P. No. 621 of 2020 & C.M.P. No. 3255 of 2020
Decided On : 02-09-2022
For the Petitioner:R. Ganesh Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent:Nirmal Roy Sanjeevi, Advocate.
The principle of promissory estoppel under Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act was central to the Court's decision, along with the voluntary acceptance of the settlement amount by the Petitioner.
Headnote:
NABARD Subsidy - Dispute over Lok Adalat award - Article 227 of the Constitution of India - E.P.No.60 of 2019 in P.L.C.No.100 of 2018 - Indian Evidence Act
Fact of the Case:
Dispute arose over the settlement amount between the Petitioner and the Respondent/Decree Holder Bank, with the Petitioner disputing the award passed by the Lok Adalat and seeking to set it aside. The Respondent argued that the Petitioner's actions were intended to protract the proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Petitioner had voluntarily accepted the settlement amount offered by the Respondent/Decree Holder Bank and that the dispute was an attempt to protract the proceedings. The Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition and directed the Petitioner to pay the balance amount within three months.
Issues: Dispute over the settlement amount, validity of the Lok Adalat award, intention to protract the proceedings
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Petitioner's conduct in disputing the award was unacceptable under the principles of promissory estoppel under Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Court also imposed a condition for the Petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and ultimately dismissed the Civil Revision Petition.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed, and the Petitioner was directed to pay the balance amount within three months, failing which the Executing Court could proceed with the attachment of the Petitioner's properties.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition had been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 21.10.2019 in E.P.No.60 of 2019 in P.L.C.No.100 of 2018 passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Ariyalur.)
1. This Civil Revision Petition had been filed seeking to set aside the fair and decretal order 21.10.2019 in E.P.No.60 of 2019 in P.L.C.No.100 of 2018 passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Ariyalur.
2. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that in the award passed by the Lok Adalat held on 06.09.2018 the subsidy amount of Rs.2,68,750 that was to be paid to the Petitioner in this Revision Petition/Judgment Debtor before the Executing Court by the NABARD Bank was not at all considered.
3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner invited the attention of this Court to the proceedings of the Assistant Director of Animal Husbandry Department, a copy of which is enclosed in the typed set of papers filed along with this Petition, the e-mail communication for the NABARD Subsidy and the Counter filed by the Petitioner herein as Respondent in the Execution Petition No.60 of 2019. Therefore, the order passed in E.P.No.60 of 2019 in PLC No.100 of 2018 against the Petitioner and in favour of the Bank of India, Thirumanur Branch, is to be set aside.
4. The learned Counsel for the Respondent/Decree Holder submitted that this Petition filed by the Judgment Debtor under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not at all maintainable. If the Lok Adalat award is vitiated by fraud, he can file similar petition. Here, it is the case that the Lok Adalat was convened and the award arrived at in the presence of the Petitioner herein and he had voluntarily admitted to the award after deducting the subsidy amount only, the outstanding of the Petitioner was taken into consideration and award is passed based on the principles of fairness, equity and good conscience which also governs the Lok Adalat proceedings. Without the cooperation of the beneficiaries of the loan, Lok Adalat award cannot be passed. The statement of the loan was already furnished to the Petitioner from the Respondent/Decree Holder Bank. The Petition had been filed suppressing the statement of account from the Respondent/Decree Holder Bank regarding the outstanding, regarding the credited amount of subsidy from the NABARD as well as Animal Husbandry Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu. This Civil Revision Petition is filed only to protract the proceedings. Therefore, this Petition has no merit and has to be dismissed.
5. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the Respondent/Decree holder invited the attention of this Court to the contents of the Counter in Paragraph 3 and 4. The statement of accounts also furnished by the Respondent/Decree holder along with the counter. The learned Counsel for the Respondent/Decree holder also invited the attention of this Court to the grounds of revision which reads as under:
“C. The executing Judge ought to have considered that the subsidy of Rs.2,68,750/- in favour of the petitioner was not adjusted by the respondent when the fact remains that the petitioner commenced work under the Poultry Development Scheme only after respondent vide sanction letter 27.03.2015 addressed to the Joint Director, Animal Husbandry, Ariyalur and the Assistant Animal Husbandry Department dated 30.03.2015 vide Na.Ka.No.109/SPD/2014 exchanged communications and sanctioned subsidy of Rs.2,68,750/- hence the order is band in law.
D. The executing Judge failed to consider that as per the Lok Adalat award dated 06.09.2018 in Case No.100 of 2018 the settlement was arrived at the sum of Rs.3,75,000/- and it was on the understanding that the petitioner should pay a sum of Rs.3,75,000/- excluding the amount of Rs.2,68,750/- being the amount of Subsidy and Rs.10,000/- paid by the petitioner before Lok Adalat but on the other hand the respondent he
